Jump to content


Suggestion: Disable one tank from each tier (tier 5 and above).

WG Listens To Community lul

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you like the idea? (38 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Do you like the idea?

  1. Yes (8 votes [21.05%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.05%

  2. No (23 votes [60.53%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.53%

  3. Perhaps with minor alterations (Do tell below). (7 votes [18.42%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.42%

Vote Hide poll

Laatikkomafia #1 Posted 02 July 2017 - 10:47 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 21299 battles
  • 4,224
  • [ELC-P] ELC-P
  • Member since:
    12-27-2010

Like in a few MOBAs, players are allowed to pick an enemy that they will not want to face. It makes the game more fun and less frustrating for the players.

 

Why not implement it to WoT as well? Make an option, like the one that allows to disable encounter and assault, that would allow to disable one tank per each tier (from tier 5 up).

 

Disabling a tank would guarantee, that you will never face it in a random battle. When platooning, the commander's disables would be used. Disabling a tank would not prohibit the player to use it himself. Only the tank of the same tier as you would be disabled.

 

For example, a players disable list could look like this:
Tier 5: T67
Tier 6: M44
Tier 7: Lago
Tier 8: ISU-152
 Tier 9: B-C 25t AP
Tier 10: T110E5

It would increase queue times slightly, for sure. But at the same time, it would make the game more fun for everyone.


Edited by Laatikkomafia, 02 July 2017 - 10:57 PM.


Pablo_Amenable #2 Posted 02 July 2017 - 10:57 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 10862 battles
  • 609
  • Member since:
    09-19-2015
Type 5 Heavy and Maus would sit in queue forever since no-one wants them

WindSplitter1 #3 Posted 02 July 2017 - 10:58 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14357 battles
  • 1,741
  • [RYNO] RYNO
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

It is a good idea and I would like to see this implemented as well.

 

Although your example list is a factor that turns the solution into a problem:

 

>Most players would single out the most used, problematic, seal clubs, overperforming tanks like Type 5, Maus, Batchats, pigeons...

>The obvious choice for those of us who dislike artillery would be, well, artillery. No SPG match-ups are possible and more frequent but catering the needs of these players would hammer the MM'er.

 

Apart from that, it's worth exploring.

 

View PostPablo_Amenable, on 02 July 2017 - 09:57 PM, said:

Type 5 Heavy and Maus would sit in queue forever since no-one wants them

 

You ninja'd me :D

 


Edited by WindSplitter1, 02 July 2017 - 10:59 PM.


Laatikkomafia #4 Posted 03 July 2017 - 02:19 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 21299 battles
  • 4,224
  • [ELC-P] ELC-P
  • Member since:
    12-27-2010

View PostPablo_Amenable, on 02 July 2017 - 11:57 PM, said:

Type 5 Heavy and Maus would sit in queue forever since no-one wants them

 

There are people who don't mind them. For example, some don't like autoloaders (me excluded).

 

Besides, I wouldn't personally find that a problem :P



MarcoStrapone #5 Posted 03 July 2017 - 02:22 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 32579 battles
  • 707
  • [-GODS] -GODS
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013
better suggest to disable maps. at least two you would like not play anymore :)

Isharial #6 Posted 03 July 2017 - 02:29 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 18418 battles
  • 2,132
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View PostLaatikkomafia, on 02 July 2017 - 10:47 PM, said:

Like in a few MOBAs, players are allowed to pick an enemy that they will not want to face. It makes the game more fun and less frustrating for the players.

 

Why not implement it to WoT as well? Make an option, like the one that allows to disable encounter and assault, that would allow to disable one tank per each tier (from tier 5 up).

 

Disabling a tank would guarantee, that you will never face it in a random battle. When platooning, the commander's disables would be used. Disabling a tank would not prohibit the player to use it himself. Only the tank of the same tier as you would be disabled.

 

For example, a players disable list could look like this:
Tier 5: T67
Tier 6: M44
Tier 7: Lago
Tier 8: ISU-152
 Tier 9: B-C 25t AP
Tier 10: T110E5

It would increase queue times slightly, for sure. But at the same time, it would make the game more fun for everyone.

 

it shouldn't allow you to use the tank you disable, that's asking for trouble

that way you could disable other T67's, but use yours knowing you'll never have to face your own tank, which is wrong imo

if its disabled, it should be disabled for you as well as being unable to face it, that therefore is fair


 

as much as there are tanks I don't like facing, the maps go a long way to actually causing that.. people don't like O-I or KV-2, but if there wasn't so many town/city maps, would they hate it as much?

id rather see this for the maps, just select 1 you don't want to see again.. but to not put too much strain on the MM, make it so there's a fall back and after 1 minute (for example purposes we'll use a minute) it can select your "disabled" map as a potential, to get you in game faster


 

 just a thought


Edited by Isharial, 03 July 2017 - 02:29 PM.


Slargmann #7 Posted 03 July 2017 - 02:31 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 27559 battles
  • 102
  • [FPDOX] FPDOX
  • Member since:
    06-13-2011

This would be a great source of information for WG, if nothing else.

 

Getting real time updates on what people like and dislike must be very valuable.



qpranger #8 Posted 03 July 2017 - 02:33 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 30772 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013
I am only ever really afraid of the Kolohousenka, irrespective of the tier I play.

Isharial #9 Posted 03 July 2017 - 02:35 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 18418 battles
  • 2,132
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View Postqpranger, on 03 July 2017 - 02:33 PM, said:

I am only ever really afraid of the Kolohousenka, irrespective of the tier I play.

 

that's a very scary tank! :ohmy:

Press2ForSkill #10 Posted 03 July 2017 - 02:43 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14631 battles
  • 689
  • [E-5OM] E-5OM
  • Member since:
    06-01-2016
WG can't even fix straightforward mm, nevermind what you are suggesting.. but WG should definitely allow people to disable 3-5 maps, i never want to see Overlord+Stalingrad etc again

Balc0ra #11 Posted 03 July 2017 - 02:53 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 62894 battles
  • 14,473
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

Tho it will make it more "fun" for most. It will screw up more then it will fix for others I suspect. As 90% will pick the same tank on each tier. Like the T67 on tier 5 or the Type 5 derp on tier X. Thus most tanks would be in a wait limbo then actually playing them. Even if only some players would use the function. I can guarantee you that there will be a few in each team on tier 5 that don't want a T67 etc.  Unless... MM can "cheat". As in just making it a reduced chanced to meet, not to eliminate the chance to meet one. So others won't get stuck in wait "limbo" for to long.



Slargmann #12 Posted 03 July 2017 - 03:00 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 27559 battles
  • 102
  • [FPDOX] FPDOX
  • Member since:
    06-13-2011

View PostBalc0ra, on 03 July 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

Tho it will make it more "fun" for most. It will screw up more then it will fix for others I suspect. As 90% will pick the same tank on each tier. Like the T67 on tier 5 or the Type 5 derp on tier X. Thus most tanks would be in a wait limbo then actually playing them. Even if only some players would use the function. I can guarantee you that there will be a few in each team on tier 5 that don't want a T67 etc.  Unless... MM can "cheat". As in just making it a reduced chanced to meet, not to eliminate the chance to meet one. So others won't get stuck in wait "limbo" for to long.

 

You could of course put the delay on the side of the guy who doesn't want to meet the offending tank. Let him wait until there's an applicable battle. Then you could also add a safety in the form of only checking at most a minute for a "good" game before reverting to default MM. This would still allow WG to mine for information about what tanks people consider fun-breaking.

250swb #13 Posted 03 July 2017 - 03:15 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 20828 battles
  • 4,603
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015

View PostLaatikkomafia, on 02 July 2017 - 10:47 PM, said:

Like in a few MOBAs, players are allowed to pick an enemy that they will not want to face. It makes the game more fun and less frustrating for the players.

 

Why not implement it to WoT as well? Make an option, like the one that allows to disable encounter and assault, that would allow to disable one tank per each tier (from tier 5 up).

 

Disabling a tank would guarantee, that you will never face it in a random battle. When platooning, the commander's disables would be used. Disabling a tank would not prohibit the player to use it himself. Only the tank of the same tier as you would be disabled.

 

For example, a players disable list could look like this:
Tier 5: T67
Tier 6: M44
Tier 7: Lago
Tier 8: ISU-152
 Tier 9: B-C 25t AP
Tier 10: T110E5

It would increase queue times slightly, for sure. But at the same time, it would make the game more fun for everyone.

 

 

Or you could grow a pair and leave the game as it is. The game desperately needs players willing to build character and determination, not encourage whiners and quitters, and having a 'scared' list isn't going to do it.



Laatikkomafia #14 Posted 03 July 2017 - 03:33 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 21299 battles
  • 4,224
  • [ELC-P] ELC-P
  • Member since:
    12-27-2010

View Post250swb, on 03 July 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

 

 

Or you could grow a pair and leave the game as it is. The game desperately needs players willing to build character and determination, not encourage whiners and quitters, and having a 'scared' list isn't going to do it.

 

If people would have "left the game as it is", we would still have three nations, memory leak issues, graphics from 2002, premium ammo with gold only and maps like Severogorsk - to name a few.

 

I have played this game three times as long as you. And let me be honest: In the long run, WG's herd sheep like you will ruin the game (what there is left of).


Edited by Laatikkomafia, 03 July 2017 - 03:33 PM.


Jumping_Turtle #15 Posted 03 July 2017 - 03:38 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 58635 battles
  • 5,117
  • [CNUT] CNUT
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostMarcoStrapone, on 03 July 2017 - 02:22 PM, said:

better suggest to disable maps. at least two you would like not play anymore :)

 

I rather have that the other way arround. So I can chose two who I would like to see a bit more than others.

unhappy_bunny #16 Posted 03 July 2017 - 04:24 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17410 battles
  • 2,153
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

View PostLaatikkomafia, on 03 July 2017 - 03:33 PM, said:

 

If people would have "left the game as it is", we would still have three nations, memory leak issues, graphics from 2002, premium ammo with gold only and maps like Severogorsk - to name a few.

 

I have played this game three times as long as you. And let me be honest: In the long run, WG's herd sheep like you will ruin the game (what there is left of).

 

I would assume he meant leave the game to the developers to develop.

And i further assume that WG are responsible for the changes over the years, not the players.

 

If WG took notice of all the suggestions on the forum, then I hate to think what a mess it would be, or we would have constant updates where a tank was nerfed, then 2 weeks later buffed, or a map removed, then reinstated, all on the whim(s) of the players posting their suggestions. 

If anything would ruin the game, it would be the likes of you, who seem to want to make it 'easier'. 

 

Look at the number of threads on the forum about "problems" with particular tanks. There was one player virtually demanding that the O-HO's gun depression be changed because it didn't suit him. He wanted it to be the same as the other Heavies in that tier. If WG took those sorts of suggestions into consideration, we would end up with every tank having the same specs as every other tank. We might as well just play 1 tank only, the same one, and have our crew restricted to the same skills/perks, only be able to use the same equipment and ammo as each other. That would become very boring very quickly. 

 

 



CaptainThunderWalker #17 Posted 03 July 2017 - 05:33 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18937 battles
  • 1,297
  • Member since:
    09-25-2015

I like this suggestion actually.  That way, Wargaming can have a look at what tanks are the biggest offenders for people and nerf them (though I bet that many Tier VIII premiums will be on the block).

It provides useful statistics.

Or even the weakened counterpart of this suggestion: an ingame poll of which tanks you deem too strong / too weak.

 

But I do also agree with the comment that you can not play the tank you do not want to meet yourself, because if you could that is quite disgusting.


Edited by CaptainThunderWalker, 03 July 2017 - 05:34 PM.


Sessine #18 Posted 03 July 2017 - 06:05 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27101 battles
  • 1,019
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    12-26-2012

I think that if you click battle you should face whatever you get so no. Usually it's more important who is in the tank. Good players in a platoon are harder to handle while a bad T67 platoon will just evaporate quickly. 

 

Aside: what does the tier 7 Lago look like? Is it good? :P

 

 



Hedgehog1963 #19 Posted 03 July 2017 - 06:27 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 50191 battles
  • 6,946
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostLaatikkomafia, on 03 July 2017 - 02:33 PM, said:

 

If people would have "left the game as it is", we would still have three nations, memory leak issues, graphics from 2002, premium ammo with gold only and maps like Severogorsk - to name a few.

 

I have played this game three times as long as you. And let me be honest: In the long run, WG's herd sheep like you will ruin the game (what there is left of).

 

On the contrary, people who think the game should revolve around them are the threat to this game.

250swb #20 Posted 03 July 2017 - 06:38 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 20828 battles
  • 4,603
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015

View PostLaatikkomafia, on 03 July 2017 - 03:33 PM, said:

 

If people would have "left the game as it is", we would still have three nations, memory leak issues, graphics from 2002, premium ammo with gold only and maps like Severogorsk - to name a few.

 

I have played this game three times as long as you. And let me be honest: In the long run, WG's herd sheep like you will ruin the game (what there is left of).

 

Well I don't know what to suggest to you when you find you are scared, perhaps go and camp somewhere safe while the rest of the team man-up and deal with the problem.

 

But you talk about how long you have played the game and that should count as more than my opinion, but how long have you not understood the average player wants some jeopardy in a computer game because it makes it exciting?


Edited by 250swb, 03 July 2017 - 06:44 PM.






Also tagged with WG, Listens, To, Community, lul

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users